Election fraud has been a hot-button issue lately, with films like 2000 Mules exposing ballot harvesting operations, and journalists in Montana and around the country uncovering connections between the United States’ voting systems and elections software company Konnech, which reportedly has connections to China.

Locally, there are concerns that the state’s voting process is in violation of state law, and state policymakers and election officials are not providing transparent or timely information to those attempting to investigate the issue.

I spoke with a concerned citizen whistleblower who requested the Cast Vote Records (CVRs) for Montana’s voting machines. CVRs are a digital randomized record of each ballot run through the machine. Or, better said, a “fingerprint” of what the machine did on election night.

My source explained that when a clerk, recorder, or elections administrator programs the election tabulation machines prior to an election, they use a thumb drive that enables or disables various options. One option is to enable the creation of the cast vote record.

However, upon requesting the Cast Vote Records for the 2020 election from Ravalli County back in February of 2022, and after being made to wait 8 months for a definitive reply from either the county or Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen’s office, my source was told that the CVRs did not exist. Upon further investigation, they established that the entire state of Montana has no Cast Vote Records, by order of the Secretary of State. This is troubling, to say the least.

Without CVRs, the state’s voting systems cannot be audited as specified in Montana Code, which is a violation of state law. The collection of CVRs would allow a post-election audit of the software function.

Montana’s laws on voting systems stipulate that:

A voting system may not be approved under 13-17-103 unless the voting system:

(g) is protected from tampering for a fraudulent purpose;

(l) allows auditors to access and monitor any software program while it is running on the system to determine whether the software is running properly.

The software operating on the machines is not currently auditable while the machines are running, in contravention to state law, per the manufacturer’s contract signed by the Secretary of State and each county that has purchased voting machines.

That’s correct, the voting machine manufacturer prohibits the state from complying with state law per the signed contract! My source shared that, due to contract restrictions, there has been no actual auditing of the software or systems that the state relies on for voting.

In a letter to the Ravalli County Commissioners dated April 28, 2022, my source stated:

“MCA 13-17-103 (l) reads: ‘allows auditors to access and monitor any software program while it is running on the system to determine whether the software is running properly.’

This MCA is in direct contradiction to the terms set out in the contracts entered into by the County with equipment provider ES&S. Therefore, the county is in a true conundrum. While I am not an Attorney, I have drafted the legalese exemplified in the contract signed between the county and ES&S. As I see it, there are three options available to the county:

1. Remove the machines and return to paper ballots as so many of your constituents have requested.

2. Seek legislative action repealing the above MCA that is contrary to the signed contracts. Please be aware, this choice would render audits benign and render all control of all county elections to the third party equipment supplier currently known as ES&S. This will be seen as a full surrender of our election process.

3. Place a Professionally Certified Cybersecurity Expert on staff to insure that the election equipment and software are performing as advertised to be in full compliance with MCA 13-17-103 (l). Such an individual should hold at a minimum the following Certifications: CHFI (Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator), GCFE (GIAC Certified Forensic Examiner), CFCE (Certified Forensic Computer Examiner), Comp TIA Security+, Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP).

It was admitted in your 4-22 meeting that no one in the room was qualified to certify that computer security was in place for the election machines, nor was there anyone qualified to perform the duties to insure that MCA 13-17-103 (l) was lawfully completed. Bottom line – the county is operating on blind faith.”

To implement the provisions of subsection (1)(f), the Secretary of State shall adopt rules setting a benchmark performance standard that must be met in tests by each voting system prior to approval under 13-17-101. The standard must be based on commonly accepted industry standards for readily available technologies. (The voting system must be able to be tested).

This is where we get into an issue with the certification of the voting machines in the state. These machines must be properly tested and certified. However, my source stated that the Montana Secretary of State has no logs or records documenting that the voting machines have ever been properly certified. Thus, they are in violation of state law. In addition, state law requires that certification must be done prior to approval of the machines in the first place.

In order for American’s voting information to be sent overseas, to China or elsewhere, an internet connection would be required. My source shared that an internet connection is, in fact, provided through peripheral equipment required to accommodate ADA requirements for disabled voters, as well as allowing those serving overseas to electronically participate in the election, or UOCAVA voters. This equipment requires a mini-server with an internet connection to function. This peripheral equipment is linked to the entire voting system and this information may be being sent overseas through the use of the UOCAVA system for voting.

Article II, Section 9 of the Montana Constitution states that, “No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.”

My source said, “The violation of my constitutionally guaranteed rights resulted in the State buying enough time to delete ALL THE RECORDS of the 2020 elections that I was requesting… I specifically required these records be preserved as there was an ongoing citizens investigation into this election.”

This concerned citizen took action by filing legal challenges against the Ravalli County Clerk & Recorder, the three county commissioners, and the Secretary of State. My source stated that, “The Deputy’s initial investigation showed that my complaint was substantiated and he opened a case. This Deputy conducted an investigation, conducted interviews, and submitted a report to the Ravalli County Sheriff, Steve Holton. Upon receipt of this report, the sheriff told the Deputy to ‘take no further action.’ My FOIA request for the deputy’s report resulted in the County Attorney sending me a minor portion of my testimony that I had provided to the Deputy, nothing from the Deputy’s report, with a statement that, ‘this is an ongoing investigation.'”

The Ravalli County Sheriff’s case number regarding the matter is #SO2209-0273.

On April 28, 2022, my source contacted County Commissioners Burrows, Chilcott, and Huls, saying, “…it was also clearly stated that A) The county is disallowed from conducting audits on any local elections other than a recount by MCA. And B) Election Audits are allowed only on National and State level elections and are at the purview of the Secretary of State. The process for selecting what elections and what counties and what precincts these audits are performed in is, at this writing, mysterious and undefined. I have heard of a ‘roll-of-the-dice’ being involved in levels of this process.”

Needless to say, this is concerning.

On August 22, 2022, this concerned citizen filed yet another FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request with Regina Plettenberg, Clerk and Recorder of Ravalli County. In their request, they asked for “the Cast Vote Record (CVR) produced by the ES&S voting machines owned by the citizens of Ravalli County.”

In response, Stuart Fuller, Elections & Voter Services Manager with the Secretary of State’s office, replied that the Cast Vote Record cannot be generated without access to “Tabulator Electionware on an Election Results PC” that has run the Cast Vote Record report. Fuller stated that without this access, the request was not applicable to a particular county. This is bureaucratic deception—the attempt to dissuade citizens from filing FOIA requests by stating that their request does not apply to a particular county, simply because the county does not want to give up the information, or is hiding the fact that they do not in fact have it.

My source provided an email sent to Regina Plettenberg from the Secretary of State to “County Election Officials,” in which the SoS stated that elections officials are to “maintain the historical practice for this type of configuration that your county has already adopted and implemented.” Thus, the Secretary of State is advising county elections officials to not run the Cast Vote Record, as this has not historically been done for Montana’s voting machines.

In addition, on September 9, 2022, Clay R. Leland, Deputy County Attorney for Ravalli County, responded to my source’s FOIA request by stating that, “Ravalli County does not have a CVR report. In accordance with guidance from the Secretary of State’s office, this request does not apply to Ravalli County.”

On September 19, 2022, my source sent a letter to the Ravalli County Commissioners, requesting proof of county compliance with voting machine requirements, inquiring about the current configuration of ES&S equipment, software (and peripheral equipment and software), and requesting a full explanation of the statement received from Deputy County Attorney Leland stating that, “Ravalli County does not have a CVR report.” They also requested a balancing and auditing of all books regarding elections, in addition to information regarding election officials membership in organizations sponsored by ES&S.

In response to the explanations provided by County administrators and the Secretary of State, my source sent the following information to state officials, addressing the issue and stating that the explanations provided made no sense:

Examination of the letter from the SOS office (NOT DATED):

‘Response from SOS re CVRs’

‘You may have received a public records request for the Cast Vote Record like the one shown below. This request is not applicable to all 56 counties in Montana.’ The SOS clearly admits by this statement that the SOS CONTROLS the elected C&R of ices for ALL 56 Counties in the State. ‘In order to generate a “Cast Vote Record’, you would need to have: Tabulator ElectionWare on an Election Results PC And ran the actual Cast Vote Record report. That report doesn’t automatically generate with results. If you do not have all of these things then this specific request is not applicable to your county.’

Here the SOS has the audacity to imply that the Cast Vote Record IS available IF the County is equipped properly. Ravalli County is equipped as stated. Yet the double-speak is overwhelming, as in the first paragraph it is made clear that: ‘This request is not applicable to all 56 counties in Montana.’

‘If you are a county that has all of these things and an existing copy of the CVR report held as a public document, then you must have your county attorney review the report for any confidential or protected by law material requiring redaction. Note – election materials such as voted ballots and/or electronic copies of voted ballots (such as the CVR report) are protected by law under seal. A court order is required to lift the seal.’

More double-speak in this paragraph with the obvious ‘IF’ being the in-your-face denial of responsibility by the SOS. Yet, if that is not sufficient, they go on to throw out the threat of court action being required to ‘unseal’ the ballot images. This is an obvious play on the public’s (and possibly the SOS’s ignorance of both the functionality of the machines and State Law. I’ll address both. First, the CVR. Enabling the recording function of the ES&S machines creates TWO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT DIGITAL records. The records are fingerprinted. That is to say, that if a copy of either of these digital records was handed off, and an attempt was made to modify said record, the entire record would become corrupted and unusable.

To address the LAW: MCA 13-15-301. ‘Disposition of items by election administrator’ clearly defines ALL election records and how they are to be secured. To extend this MCA to include digital records that are not declared falls under the definition of legislation. This overreach results in further denial of information available to the citizenry. Even IF the SOS did not deny this information intentionally…

Since the Secretary of State is unable to provide proof of compliance with MCA 13-17-103 (l), which has been a law since 2019, and because Cast Vote Records are not allowed to be produced for Montana’s elections by order of the Secretary of State, all Montana elections since 2019 may very well be illegal.

These apparent violations of Montana Law and usurpations of Montanan’s constitutional rights should be the subject of an external investigation.